The earliest fossil bats are about 52 million years old. These bats already looked similar to modern bats, so they had to have been evolving into bats some time before this. However I would suggest that they waited for the dinosaurs to go exinct before they did so, since the majority of new mammal forms followed this evolutionary pattern. 15 million years is a long time.

Fair enough. I do not agree with some of what you have said but I am not in the mood at the moment to debate something that will likely go round in circles []

I will suggest that you read some of his earlier books, including http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unweaving_the_Rainbow , because you will find that Dawkins has already provided the "replacement" of religion, and they will place The God Delusion in context.

I'm not sure whether you've actually heard or read Richard Dawkins himself? His work is not as extreme or strident as people make out; he's actually a rather nice man. We both know that so many people take the softly-softly approach to religion. I think it's great that a few people like Dawkins are promoting the no-nonsense scientific perspective. He has acknowledged that he does not argue the comfort-value but rather the truth-value of religion, and that he would never, for example, force anti-religion on a grieving or dying person.

The Greatest Show on Earth is a scientific book about the overwhelming evidence for evolution. The audiobook is beautifully read by himself and his wife Lalla Ward. It does not promote anti-religion, but it is very anti-creationism. Have you read Dawkins' previous biology books?

I'm the first person to argue for the "proper" use of language, but let's face it, language is a communication tool, and it evolves. In a colloquial context, and perhaps in some academic/professional contexts, the "common usage" really is the correct usage. Words are just sounds and symbols that humans arbitrarily attribute meaning to.

What I meant to convey when I asked what does the tree do when its photosynthates have sunk, was, what if this occurs long before Spring arrives? And is the concentration of salts normally found in water enough? Do you use the correct (natural) concentrations, as well as tube diameter, in your experiments?

If you want medical treatment that is actually effective then you should stay as far away from Alternative "medicine" as possible. Their "treatments" are insufficiently regulated for safety and efficacy. Many of them have been shown to be outright dangerous as well as very ineffective. Most of the modalities, e.g. homeopathy and chiropractic, have no basis in reality.

Alternative "medicine" can not treat medical conditions.

However, if all you are looking for is comfort and you are willing to pay excessive amounts of money for it, then Alternative "medicine" is one option for you, as long as you refrain from ingesting any of their substances and ignore them when they discourage you from real treatment. You might be better off seeing a psychologist to help get you through your medical stresses.

You should try to find some good doctors practicing real science-based medicine and get help from them.

I'm very protective of my 120GB Classic but I still manage to drop it occasionally.

I have a plain polycarb case for it, but I have my eye on this case because I work around water a lot (I breed ornamental fish) and would also like to be able to sterilise the case without worrying about damaging the ipod:

Do you accept that transpiration is the major factor in water transport in leaved trees?

Have you demonstrated experimentally and mathematically that density changes are enough to cause water transport?

In winter, metabolism slows down and sugar production at the top of the tree stops. So once that sugar (and other nutrients produced in the leaves) have sunk to the bottom of the tree, the tree's water transport power is significantly reduced. What does the tree do then? Are dissolved minerals really enough?

Trees have thick bark and waxy coatings that prevent water loss. Can you demonstrate that any water loss that does occur is significant enough to endanger the tree in winter? Or if water that's lost is replaced by your proposed mechanism, can you demonstrate that this is the case?

Why would trees that have lost their leaves need any significant water uptake at all? Climates in which deciduous trees evolved are cold in winter, so tree metabolism and water-loss is reduced. Sap can even freeze. Any slight water loss could probably be compensated for by stomata in the stems. So what's the problem?

Mutation rate would depend on how effective the species' DNA repair and maintenance mechanisms are, and how many mutation-causing factors there are in the environment (chemicals, radiation).

Species with shorter generation times will also have higher mutation rates because more new generations are produced in the same amount of time, with opportunity for mutation between each generation.

It is also possible that the loss of the ability to produce fertile hybrid offspring between genetically distinct individuals is not consistent only with mutation rate, because it may be that the mutations affect genetic compatibility in different ways.

I never said it couldn't. It was you being critical of something you could not do better yourself, as you admitted.

It doesn't change the fact that it has taken you until this post to clearly explain what your argument is. My own skills are irrelevant; you are the one making the argument.

Quote

I don't think you've understood the comment. If you understood it, you would see the connection. Last time, different way of explaining: If there are parallel universes, then the laws of physics state that each universe will have exactly the same amount of particles in each universe, which is around 10^80, give or take a few tens. Now, if our universe began in a ground state, it means that you cannot get a universe any more simpler than a ground state. To expect that our universe out of so many arises to be the most simplest way for reality to form (and knowing that the simple-nature cannot be reduced any more) means that none of the other universes (an infinite amount of them) can have begun in a lower state of energy.

Now... this is true. What part of it do you argue?

So all you are saying is that other universes would start off with similar characteristics to this universe?

Why do you you think that would be the case?

Why do you need to use "irreducible complexity" in your argument? All it does is obstruct more explicit explanation. "Complex" isn't even a good adjective for what you are saying.

Quote

Not for this topic it isn't. We are talking about entropy, not biological systems - we are talking about the cosmological make-up, not animals.You are talking about devices. This is not a proper arguement to the conjecture being exampled. You cannot associate that therefore, with a quantum mechanical aspect of the universe.

Entropy is something that changes (increases) over time. Those biological and mechanical systems also change over time. The point was that you can't consider past and present states in the same way.

Quote

Not my point. My point is is that you believe we have an accurate model of the evolution of the universe. This is not true, and there are many holes for error.

It's extremely accurate and it is the most accurate model to date. Of course it's not perfect - if it was, science would end.

I don't know if I personally could because I don't generally write about physics. But it is definitely possible to write better about physics.

Quote

My idea of the irreducibility of the complexity was based purely on theoretical considerations on the current quantum-cosmological theory of entropy. The general acceptance of cosmologists and physicists alike state that the universe at the first instant of time yielded a peculiar low state of entropy - also known as a ground state - the lowest fundemental state you can get making the universe an efficient place. Since today the maximal amount of entropy is considered on the quantum and grand cosmological scales, then the minimum amount of entropy can be classed as reducing the entropy to a ground state (lowest entropy) but if one wanted another universe to begin fundementally in a lower state of entropy we have a paradox on what is allowed in any given universe. This would mean that the entropy in our universe is irreducibly-complex to state that no other universe could manifest in lower energy states.

This seems to me to be a non-sequitur: "but if one wanted another universe to begin fundementally in a lower state of entropy we have a paradox on what is allowed in any given universe. This would mean that the entropy in our universe is irreducibly-complex to state that no other universe could manifest in lower energy states". It is not consistent with the rest of your comment.

Quote

Only in the biological sense. I made this clear in the OP

Biology is of course highly organised and intricate physics and chemistry. The examples of falsified irreducible complexity in biology are also generalisable to abiological concepts.

Consider a biological structure that is composed of several parts. The structure may be completely nonfunctional if any of its parts are modified or absent. However, because we know that the structure and its parts have evolved (changed) over time, we can show that at some time in the past, the structure and its parts were different and the structure was not nonfunctional in the absence of some parts. Eventually the parts evolved to be completely dependent on each other for proper function.

A simpler, more purely physical/mechanical example is this: Build an arch out of bricks. This is how arches are made, and its a very reducible process: http://www.diyinfo.org/wiki/How_To_Build_A_Brick_Arch,_Ringed-Curved_Stylehttp://www.diyinfo.org/images/f/f7/Brickarch_C.jpgThe bricks in the arch are at first supported by a wooden scaffold. Once the arch is complete, the scaffold is removed and the arch supports itself. Some of these arches do not even require cement, for example if the bricks are wedged, because all the bricks are being forced down and push against each other so there is no way for them to fall.But what happens if you remove the key brick? The structure collapses.

Does that mean that either the arch or the biological structure were irreducibly complex? No. Extreme co-dependence for function does not equal irreducible complexity. Neither do complex present conditions equal irreducibly complex past conditions.

Quote

I don't know what you have been reading but the evolution of the universe now depends on an unseen force called dark energy which pervaids 74% of all the matter in the universe. If anything, we don't have any accuracy on cosmological scales, only local scales, such as our solar system

That information is not inconsistent with current theories about the reducibility of the universe.